Arthur Cordell asked: > Taking the neutrality stance I think makes Switzerland a very special place > and must cause the Swiss to think of themselves as somewhat special thereby > giving them a degree of social cohesion. > > Or does the causation circle go the other way around, with social cohesion > coming first and thus the degree of self to lead to the position of > neutrality?
Historically, for this country of four cultures situated between warring neighbors, neutrality was simply necessary to avoid falling apart as a country. Taking sides with one neighbor against the others would have turned off the other cultures in CH. (This in contrast to the cliché that neutrality was simply a means of war-profiteering -- probably true for mono-cultural countries like Sweden.) Being surrounded by kingdoms and regimes was an incentive for all Swiss to stick together against invaders/imperialists, in order to preserve freedom and democracy. (This still holds today as an incentive not to join the EU ;-} ) Anyway, I think you over-estimate the importance of social cohesion as a necessary precondition for a social security grid. When I wrote that the family or else the local community pays for the rent&food of the citizens who can't pay it on their own, I was referring to a legal requirement, not voluntary generosity. This could be introduced in countries with less social cohesion too. > You suggest that the educational/poverty problems (which I agree are > structual) of eg., Canada, do not exist in Switzerland. Is this so? I observed that the problem of foodbanks, as described on this list to exist in Canada, does not exist in Switzerland, because poverty is being addressed differently. Chris >You suggest that the educational/poverty problems (which I agree are >structual) of eg., Canada, do not exist in Switzerland. Is this so? > >arthur > >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Monday, December 8, 2003 1:35 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: [Futurework] The Politics of Foodbanks (or lack thereof) > > >Harry Pollard wrote: >> When I read it, I agreed with Chris' remarks. Except of course >> his aside on protectionism. > >The problem is that the system I described wouldn't work under >"Free" Market conditions. > > >> Our only hope in the US in many places is to make education >> voluntary. Teachers should teach only those who want to learn - >> or whose parents want them to learn. > >What about the others? This "screw the rest" attitude is so typical >of the FT ideology. It only makes things worse. > >Btw, learning disabilities are increasing. I.e there are children >who may want to learn (and whose parents want them to learn) but >who are unable to learn (effectively). This is mainly due to >effects of corporate policies (junk-food malnutrition, dental mercury, >drugs, cell-phone radiation etc.), so blaming "state schools" in general >and praising privatization/corporatization is really making the fox guard >the henhouse. > >Chris > > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword >"igve". > > >_______________________________________________ >Futurework mailing list >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework >_______________________________________________ >Futurework mailing list >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
